Re: Question re. Copper artifact CanadianArcticformerRe:CopperCasting In America (Trevelyan)

From: Eric Stevens (eric.stevens_at_sum.co.nz)
Date: 07/29/04 

Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 08:39:49 +1200

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 02:29:44 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

>Erik Hammerstad <egeha.is.all.you.need@start.no> wrote:
>>Tom McDonald wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> I don't suppose I could prevail upon those invested in
>>> this endless liar-caller-fest to pause a moment. I'd like to
>>> know what you agree on wrt the time-depth of sea-worthy skin
>>> boats in the Arctic, and in sub-Arctic Greenland?
>>> I'd also be interested in whether you've come to agreement
>>> about the actual construction of late pre-historic and
>>> historic skin boats in that area.
>>>
>>Regardless of what various people agree upon, see pp 90-96 in
>>http://www.dpc.dk/PolarPubs/MoG/Dokumenter/MS30.pdf
>
>That is a *huge* pdf file (27Mb), but *very* worth the effort to
>download!
>
>Page 90 in fact has something which contradicts previous "common
>knowledge" regarding skin boats. (There are other things in the
>document which are also eye poppers!)
>
>The caption for Figure 7.7, reads,
>
> Fig. 7.7. Wooden rib from a slender
> kayak or canoe type of boat.
> Fragments of heavier ribs indicate that
> the inhabitants of Qeqertasussuk also
> possessed larger boats probably of
> umiaq size class (From Grønnow
> 1988:36).
>
>The text in the second column on page 90 says,
>
> The larger rib fragments may originate from a larger
> umiaq-type of boat primarily used for transportation
> and/or large whale hunting.
>
>The significance is that it has been generally felt that the
>umiaq was part of Thule Technology, and that pre-Thule Eskimo
>people did not hunt whales on the open ocean (but certainly
>would have used any dead whale that floated up) until they had
>the larger boats. It appears that what has been generally
>accepted may not be the case. The evidence indicates at least
>some use of dogs for transportation, the use of large umiaq
>style boats, and even possibly some open water whale hunting.
>
>The later discussion of subsistence, however, is not convincing
>at all in regard to whaling. While there clearly did exist
>tools sufficient to hunt whales, there seems little actual
>evidence that they did. The authors tend to lean more towards
>assuming there was more activity than the artifacts indicate.
>
>
>Whatever, for Seppo, Inger, and Eric, it should be noted that
>the document clearly proves a number of things. Foremost of
>course is that driftwood was commonly available and in use by
>*Inuit* (see pages 55, 56, 128 and 143) people on Greenland in a
>time period prior to 2000 years before present.

I don't know why you keep claiming that that I argue that driftwood
was not commonly available. Of course it was. The evidence is that
there has long been plenty of driftwood and that much of it comes from
Siberia. Please don't keep lumping me in with others when you make
these claims.
>
>I didn't notice any indication of whale bone being used to
>construct boat frames, though I haven't read the entire document
>carefully yet.

Eric Stevens

Relevant Pages